sonthert Reviews

Creep (I) (2014)

Run now. When this movie falls down, don't go back for it

[2/10 · 10 August 2016]

Found-footage movies have a muddy track to run on. The drive by writers and producers seems lately to make cheap horror movies. Waste tons of money on superhero movies, but stop making quality movies in the horror genre. "Creep" is another mutant franchise- child to try to make an endless string of movies that cover their meager outlays by lacking in production value. The found-footage movie is a favorite vehicle of budget-slashing studios that lack fresh ideas to keep us frozen in terror. Less articulate notes:

"Creep" features tacky shock scares with abrupt cues in the background score, boring (I tried falling asleep), predictable, improbable premise. My wife and I booed at the end of the movie. Like a lower-budget, found-footage version of "Vacancy".

Whats not to like? If you see this movie, push it down a flight of stairs before its too late. I gave it an extra star because I'm a moron, like Aaron.

Head Case (2007)

Beware! Your Worst Nightmares Could Become a Fakeumentary

[2/10 · 7 March 2013]

Well, I watched the movie all the way through. I did.

The cinematography was interesting in places, reminiscent of Dario Argento. Very texture-laden. Cinder-block walls, brick walls, textured stucco, the sets in the Montgomery's house had a scabby, WalMart-esque organized quality in a manner. Pleasing in a way. The problem is what other reviewers saw as "grisly" or "gory" was off-screen butchery. Some of it was on-screen, but both on-screen and off-screen lacked a kinetic quality. Watch "Videodrome" and the video of abattoir had water in it, to give it kinetic quality. There is nothing in the cinematography of "Head Case" to suggest kinetic action. What makes "America's Funniest Home Videos" funny is kinetic action. "Head Case" is fake-umentary that resembles a video of a socially-awkward teenager who stammers a lot. If fake blood that doesn't seem to come from anywhere, just magically appearing is "disturbing" then this movie is disturbing.

Somebody once said something to the effect that not showing everything adds to the terror of a movie. Well, this movie has gone too far and shows nothing.

Somebody else said in a play, you have to act large, on camera, for a movie you have to be much smaller. I don't know that the director or the actors in this movie ever heard this, especially Barbara Lessin (Andrea Montgomery). The acting is far too large for this movie. Its flat and overdone, simultaneously somehow.

The actors may be improvising, but they aren't doing a good job of it. There's lots of stammering, lots of moments where it seems like Paul McCloskey doesn't quite know what to say. If they are serial killers, why are they saying things like "Ew! That's gross!" Um, yeah. I'm improvising too. The dialog is terrible.

The background score, by the way, is pointless. Why are we adding background music that leaks out of old elevators to something that's supposed to be a "pieced-together" archive? The music detracts from the movie, doesn't add to it.

I see Hershel Gordon Lewis in demented-tones of this movie, I can see similarities to Hannibal Lecter ("I prefer to eat the rude whenever possible"), I see some Hitchcock-ian female figures badgering and harassing Wayne Montgomery in the movie. I see lots of Eli Roth ala "Hostel". I see some David Lynch from some of his lesser known shorts or "Eraserhead". Why does every aspiring film director borrow from David Lynch?? No, stop don't answer that question. The movie is original-ish, but a seemingly endless parade of stammering in a background melange of borrowed pieces from other horror movies. Really, the nods to horror classics isn't too bad. Its not that the movie comes off as derivative, but it comes off as amateurish, poorly done and lacking in polish.

If you like movies with definitive endings and hate movies that leave room for a sequel (or insist a sequel exist for the sake of completeness), then this movie will really ruin your day.

Some people might see these qualities as pluses and may want to watch the movie. Feel free; I don't recommend this movie in any degree. It isn't as funny or farcical as Herschel Gordon Lewis. It lacks good taste, real gore and the things that separate boring university lectures from entertaining movies.

2/10 (For some of the lighting and the texture of the cinematography)

The Twilight Zone: The Brain Center at Whipple's (1964) Season 5, Episode 33

The Wholesale Firing of Men who Have Worked Here 20 Years

[10/10 · 28 May 2012]

I'm no expert on The Twilight Zone, but I guess my tastes run in opposition to other peoples.

"The Brain Center at Whipple's" is one of my favorite episodes.

I love the piece-character actor ("The Dick Van Dyke Show", "Leave it to Beaver", "The Birds") and professional chef Richard Deacon.

If I wanted to find a fault with the episode, I would certainly point at the direction of Richard Donner. The Twilight Zone is not "Lethal Weapon", nor "The Omen", nor "Conspiracy Theory". Consistently, the dialog of Gregory Peck in "The Omen", the dialog of Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" and the dialog in "The Brain Center at Whipple's" have a common thread. The dialog is run out way too far. Its fine for modern action movies, but not for a show like the Twilight Zone. To the detractors of this show, I tip my hat on that point. Richard Donner is well acclaimed director...but didn't do as well with a Twilight Zone episode.

If you ignore the long, meandering, overly-punctuated dialog, the story is certainly way ahead of its time. Its prescience is beyond creepy. As we speak, American car manufacturers are working on assembly lines that are completely automated to put hundreds of high-paid assembly line people out of work. The anger and shouting exhibited by the foreman Dickerson is a reflection of the frustration that American workers who are put out of work and that can't find work (as there isn't any) experienced in the 60s and up until today. A man gets old enough and he really can't do anything else. He can't take a night school class and become a doctor. It was unspoken in the episode, but the phrases "Men who have worked here for 20 years" eludes to the idea that these men have committed themselves to their job and the Whipple's company and that losing a job means they have to completely overhaul, if possible, the way they look at the world if they want to get a job...if they can. Its that these men have acquiesced to a plan about their lives and now the commitment they offered in giving their most productive years to a company were in vain. All neatly wrapped up in the confused rage and anger personified in the shop foreman Dickerson. He shouts. His life, as he knows it, his family, his home, his avocations, everything has been upended and he's scared about his prospects for the future, and his responsibility to his family. You'd be angry too. The modern workplace doesn't feature men who work for the same company for 20 years. People have a job for five years and then have to get a new one. People don't see the world from a perspective of working for one company for the rest of your lives. If you were Dickerson, you'd be mad as hell too. Plant Manager Hanley also is enraged. The character selected looks like he's about 80. He's outraged at the lack of compassion and commitment of Whipple's to the people that dedicated their lives to Whipple's. The episode does indeed feature a lot complaining and shouting. If it remains to the direction of Serling, people are upset that progress involves them being declared obsolete.

It is a proper analysis of a season 5 episode written by Rod Serling to compare it to episodes from seasons 1-4 that Serling wrote that it mirrors. There were a lot of mirrored episodes. Some were completely "unique", but many are mirrors. I would draw a parallel between "The Brain Center at Whipple's" and the much celebrated "The Obsolete Man". The hinge of the story is much different, the causes of obsolescence are very different, but the end result is the same. Serling hated totalitarianism (as do I, much from growing up watching the Twilight Zone) and the idea that people were pawns or victims of large tectonic plates of the world moving around crushing them without their having recourse nor ability to avoid them. Serling wrote that men should have the right to choose for themselves when large, powerful forces take away a man's right to chose for himself, it is immoral.

Some of the episode might point to "Patterns", Rod Serling's movie script dealing with corporate greed and competition, but I don't feel "The Brain Center at Whipple's" follows along the same lines. Serling's perceived lack of caring on the part of the corporations and industry does permeate both screenplays. Patterns deals with executives and Whipple's deals with the obsolescence of the worker. "The Brain Center at Whipple's" is an indictment of the hypocrisy of corporate phrase-making and media spin. Its called "progress", but it results in men being put out of work. The episode also eschews the idea that men (and women) have a need to work and to feel productive. Whipple's is an illustrative microcosm of American Industry. There are several more small, subtle point woven into the screenplay and its easy to lose sight or miss them entirely, but watch the news on the economy or the job situation and then watch "The Brain Center at Whipple's". The episode still may be even ahead of its time. The scope of "The Brain Center at Whipple's" may not be fully realized for another 20 years. Many factories, large stores or businesses used to have a large lunch room, with a cafeteria and food service to the platoons of workers. Now, very few of these have a need for a cafeteria due to highly reduced workforces. "There's nothing down there except a few vending machines." Exactly what modern "lunch rooms" look like.

I find this to be an extremely terse, complex (overly so for the average viewer?) episode. Don't watch it to be entertained. Watch it as Serling's prophecy about things to come.

Pursuit (1972 TV Movie)

Set in Beautiful San Diego, an emergent Terrorist Threat

[9/10 · 17 May 2012]

How this movie doesn't get more acclaim is strange.

The prophetic and imaginative Michael Crichton ("Andromeda Strain", "Coma", "WestWorld" directs his own screenplay. Michael Crichton had a prescience in his vision and this movie is no exception. Getting hung up on setting the movie "in the future" never presented a dilemma for Crichton. He just uses contemporary settings to bring the movie closer to home. The technology may be beyond our means, but it still affects us all today.

The movie stars brilliant and eclectic Ben Gazzara ("The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", "The Big Lebowski"), Storied great E.G. Marshall ("12 Angry Men", "Creepshow"), Prolific Martin Sheen ("Apocalypse Now", "The Dead Zone") and Television guest star William Windom ("Star Trek: The Doomsday Machine", "Escape from the Planet of The Apes").

The musical score is even composed by composer-great Jerry Goldsmith. Its reminiscent of "Hawaii 5-0", "McQ" or "The French Connection" a typical, but lively, 70s-style action cop-show movie background score. I love background scores like this. Its a really good one. The sunset of actual orchestral background scores.

The story revolves around a political activist-millionaire-terrorist who steals a large supply of nerve gas and threatens to release it in San Diego, which is hosting the Republican National Convention.

Sounds simple. The movie is really thrilling for a TV Movie, the story has a familiar contemporary feel, the acting and musical score are good. The movie was filmed in early 1970s San Diego and for anybody who loves or lives in San Diego (like me), the movie is a great archive piece to record how San Diego was 40 years ago. Much more watchable than "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes".

Could the movie have been better? Sure it could. It suffered from low-budget syndrome. Michael Crichton's visionary writing shakes most of the deficiencies the move has and makes this a great TV-Special...certainly one of my top 10-made for TV Movies of all time.

Con Express (2002 Video)

Its not just a mediocre Movie

[2/10 · 12 November 2011]

This movie really isn't that bad.

The acting isn't ponderous or terribly compelling, the story line is interesting, perhaps a little predictable. The actors are a relatively obscure lot. I may not be the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to low-grade actors, but I kinda enjoyed the cannibal Russian. He was funny. Not in an intentional way unfortunately.

What kills the movie is the huge number of continuity problems.

The soundtrack is terrible. Typical canned background score.

I don't want to say too much about this movie. Watch it once. Or not. Its not the end of the world either way.

Mirage (1965)

Could have been something written by Rod Serling

[9/10 · 16 September 2011]

This movie certainly deserves to be called an action movie, albeit a 1965 action movie.

Gregory Peck stars in this hidden gem, other notables such as Kevin McCarthy ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers"), George Kennedy ("Airport", "Cool Hand Luke"), Walter Matthau ("The Taking of Pelham 123", "Hopscotch") and even a small walk-on by Franklin Cover ("The Jeffersons" TV Series). This is one of five movies that George Kennedy and Walter Matthau overlap on. I like both actors, so this movie got instant extra points.

The movie has the tone of a Rod Serling Screenplay. Its very reminiscent in style to "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" or the "Twilight Zone", addressing nuclear war, world peace, civil liberties and other humanistic themes. Its not a cowboy movie where a guy gets shot and the main characters just step over the dead guy.

The story revolves around a physiochemist who invents a way to eliminate nuclear fallout and radiation. He realizes that big business will use it to make nuclear bombs get used more since the risk of fallout is what makes nuclear weapons unwise. His dedication to world peace and ending war makes him decide to make the formula disappear. Gregory Peck's character Stillwell finds himself caught up in a case of mistaken identity, somewhat like Hitchcock's "North by Northwest" and confusion. He seems to remember some things very clearly, and other things he can't remember at all as if he had his mind wiped by hypnosis or some foul play. He continues to try and unravel how the events surrounding the disappearance of this formula and the death of a noted leader for world peace have in common. He goes to the police, who are uninterested in the case since he can't remember key elements about himself like where he is from. He goes to a psychiatrist who tells him that his story and symptoms are unbelievable. He then contacts a private detective named Caselle played by Walter Matthau who tries to help him, after Caselle decides that Stillwell's incredible story may be true. All the while a mysterious woman named Shela, played by Diane Baker who seems to know more about Stillwell than he does keeps dropping in, seemingly to keep Stillwell out of (or in) even more serious trouble.

The acting is excellent, the story excellent. The ending is a little questionable, but obviously somebody's allegorical message about war or not submitting to authority. Well worth watching.

Warning Sign (1985)

One of the Best Science Fiction Movies of the 80s

[10/10 · 10 August 2011]

I saw this movie on HBO years ago. As time has gone on and I have seen more Science Fiction, horror and zombie movies, I have come to regard this movie as one of the best of all three. Certainly one of the high-points of the 80s Science Fiction entries.

This movie came out at the same time as "The Stuff", but "Warning Sign" is a more refined and seemingly a much higher budget movie. It has a very slick look when compared to "The Stuff". It even looks pretty good when compared to "Aliens".

**********************Spoilers Below************************* The movie starts out as an average workday at BioTek, the Head of Security, Joanie Morse played by Kathleen Quinlan is going through her end of the day checks and talking to her husband, Cal Morse, the town's sheriff and aspiring lawyer played by Sam Waterston as he's on routine patrol. Something goes wrong. She initiates a security protocol. Yaphet Kotto plays Major Connolly who heads up the US response team who arrives in short succession. Townspeople, unaware of the danger begin to form a mob, headed by Vic played by Jerry Hardin (X-Files, Star Trek the Next Generation). Inside, bands of roving scientists, technicians and workers break out of containment areas and infection begins to spread while the infected begin to act irrationally. Several bands of people in the plant attempt different strategies, from holing up to finding a magical antitoxin. G.W. Bailey (Sgt. Rizzo from M*A*S*H* TV Series) plays Tom Schmidt who is trying to administer the antitoxin after overcoming disbelief at the accident, thinking its a mix-up for the first half of the movie. Richard Dysart plays Dr. Neilsen ("The Thing", "The Prophecy"), the head of the research team working on the virus and becomes the most violent infected person, taking charge of a dangerous band of infected people who attempt to hide the accident in infected mind irrational perspective, which involves lots of smashing and trying to infect the uninfected. Cal Morse contacts Dan Fairchild played by Jeffrey DeMunn, a former employee at BioTek for more help to try to get Joanie Morse out when she seems to be uninfected. The government sends in a containment team which is overtaken by Dr. Neilsen's infected team inside the plant and Major Connolly decides to initiate a lock-down to contain the infection and minimize the spread of the infection. Sheriff Morse and Dan Fairchild then break into the plant to attempt to rescue Joanie Morse and find the secret to the spread of the disease. ***************************End of Spoilers***************************

First off, the acting is very good for a movie of this genre. Kathleen Quinlan, Sam Waterston, Jeffrey DeMunn, Richard Dysart, Yaphet Kotto and G.W. Bailey all deserve some recognition for their acting. I like Jerry Hardin's Sci-Fi work, so I mention him, although his role was a little lacking, there wasn't much to grab on to. Hard to make "Irrational Redneck" an Oscar-winning performance.

The director uses lots of modulation in the way the character's speak their lines to add emphasis to the dialog and to allow the audience to distinguish the infected from the uninfected. Kathleen Quinlan, when under extreme stress, at one point drops her western accent and produces a pure New York Brooklyn accent. Since she is from California, it isn't an accident, bad editing or bad acting I don't believe. Its meant to convey her stress. The infected people speak in a melodramatic way which seems cheesy, but on closer inspection is a device the director is using to make the audience aware of the mental stress the infection causes. I would liken Barwood's attempt to Clouzot's analysis of characters in "The Wages of Fear" or "Diabolique", but far less insightful than Clouzot. I fear it may have been lost on most people, though. Perhaps writer/director Barwood tried to do too much for a movie of this type. Maybe "Towering Infernos" can't contain deep, socially-conscious points. The movie stretched out a little too far but it is still great and worth watching at least once.

The movie isn't a full horror movie. I don't think it was meant to be. Its more in the vein of "Andromeda Strain" especially, "The Crazies" and "Quarantine" to a lesser extent. Its more of a science fiction movie with zombie-ish infection. "Warning Sign" tried to accomplish more, achieve a higher level and missed somewhat. For a horror or zombie movie its tame, but the movie doesn't go out of its way to bludgeon you into being afraid. Its not that scary. Its more creepy than scary, but not a common "Vincent Price"-brand of creepy. The movie breaks itself out as a serious movie with an attempt at social commentary (although fictional?), great makeup effects, a great screenplay, a pretty good "Dawn of the Dead"-like electronic background score, but tuned up for the 80s. The entire movie has an air of reality similar to "Andromeda Strain". It feels like it could be an actually happening, everything is just persuasive enough to make sense, there seems to be an understanding of science written into the screenplay which is rare in zombie movies. Too many zombie movies have taken the approach "Don't worry about it, just watch the movie" to the point they slightly insult the intelligence for people who are unable to suspend disbelief. "Warning Sign" dots the 'i's and crosses the 't's. There are points of costume and props that are poorly thought, but they are background material.

I found the ending to be a little mushy and a little too far outside the horror audience to be appreciated. As an adult, I still find it a little crummy, but it works for me ultimately and it provides closure.

Fortunately, Anchor Bay released this title on DVD. Watch this movie, it's carefully constructed screenplay is worth unwinding.

Falling Down (1993)

Average Man Strikes Back

[10/10 · 29 October 2010]

I'm sure there are a number of well-constructed reviews that would have you believe this movie is a clichê waste of time.

This movie is styled in the genre of a Superhero Movie. I think calling it cliché is shortsighted any more than calling than calling Iron Man cliché. In terms of the movie, there are good guys and there are bad guys. The bad guys are the self-centered, thoughtless people who drift through life being rude and inconsiderate to strangers and the people around them. The good guys are the ones who care about life and other people. The movie makes no qualms about clearly defining who's who.

Its not supposed to be complicated. The other people in the movie are strangers in the perspective of the anti-hero, played by Michael Douglas (William Foster) and the movie is set in a camera narrative centering around his world and secondarily to Robert Duvall's character (Detective Prendergast). The minor characters are underdeveloped to not distract attention from the central figures in the movie, both troubled, both angry and frustrated, but who deal with their issues differently. Detective Prendergast, if he has a first name doesn't ever have it mentioned by his family or friends in the context of the movie. He is referred to a Prendergast, but there is some amount of character development centering around him. This is one of Robert Duvall's finest modern performances. He is sympathetic, brave, heroic and troubled by his life as a police officer and his wife's emotional problems. It would be simplistic, although not incorrect to call Detective Prendergast the hero of the movie, although the movie centers more around Bill Foster. Michael Douglas' portrayal of Foster is complicated. He is a nice man, concerned, thoughtful, but possessing a terrifying temper that is his Achilles' Heel.

The minor characters are merely a backdrop. There are nice guys and bad guys in most every situation, whether the fast food restaurant shooting, or the police officers who show up to try and help Barbara Hershey (Beth Trevino, the ex-wife of Bill Foster). Some of them are overly offensive and obnoxious, where some are overly sweet and caring. This is, again, from the perspective of the violent, intelligent and angry Bill Foster who sees things as good and bad, polarized completely. He doesn't see subtleties in people, he only sees what his life has conditioned him to see, he reaches his breaking point and reacts with great volatility being kind and thoughtful one minute and angry and explosive the next. Some moments bring him back to his socialized facade of civility only to lose them once again. A man lost in the conflict between his morality, his anger, the people around him and the pain of a world he lives in that violates his preconceived ideas.

This movie has a great deal of conflict and paradox, which is the point, I think. Its not supposed to be clear what happens or even what force motivates Bill Foster. Enjoy it. Its a great movie and has real rewatchability.

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

Groomed to be a Cult Classic?

[1/10 · 14 September 2010]

I know a few people that absolutely love this movie. One friend had just bought a copy of it, so I bought it from him.

Big mistake.

I like movies from many genres, I like the "Saw" Series, (although "Saw II" was a letdown). The movie I watched directly before this (might have been a bad choice to have watched them back-to-back) was another musical, "High Society" (1956) scored by Cole Porter. Trying to compare "Repo" to a Cole Porter Musical is like trying to compare apples to Volkswagens.

"Repo" is a bad rip-off of "Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975). The storyline is different, but the background score and lyrics are reminiscent of Richard O'Brien's, closer to his second movie, "Shock Treatment", but nowhere near as clever or catchy. The costuming is actually similar to "Shock Treatment" too. The graverobber fits the role of the Criminologist (Charles Gray) in "Rocky Horror" perfectly. Both narrating the movie in a fashion. The movie nudges "Rocky Horror" a little too much. The score makes me, as another reviewer commented, made me cringe. Bousman likes his quirky "opera", its a personal project, based on the interviews on the DVD, but its not fit for anything other than a recycling container. The people who made this movie thought they could improve "Rocky Horror" or pay homage to it. Either way, no soap.

I love Paul Sorvino (Rotti Largo), I don't hate Paris Hilton (Amber Sweet) as much as other people seem to, and I even have a regard for Bill Moseley (Luigi Largo) from his other roles, notably "House of 1000 Corpses" (2003), "Halloween" (2007) and the "Alphabet Killer" (2008). The characters and their roles are augmented by a cartoon/comic book background, similar to "A Scanner Darkly" (2005) or "Creepshow" (1982), but I felt the whole mechanism fails badly. The characters and the acting hobble around without any guidance or point.

I should add I was amazed at Sorvino's singing ability at this point. Didn't help though.

A few thoughts/reactions to the movie from our watching of it: We're watching "Repo", laughing at it, making fun of it, ridiculing it. We're not laughing with it, we're laughing at it though. It has a quality that doesn't allow me to turn it off and throw the DVD across the room, but that doesn't really make up for the lack of what makes movies good. Sorry. The complete absence of what makes movies good. I like movies that are campy and ones that are classy, and this movie isn't either. I like Hershel Gordon Lewis' work. All of it. I like Dario Argento and Giallo. I love Sci-Fi, I love horror movies, especially zombie movies. I even like some of Troma's offerings of movies ("The Last Horror Film" (1985) Especially). Alexa Vega's singing is awful. Really awful. The movie has a nails on the chalkboard quality to it. Screechy. The scene with Paris Hilton on the Genetic Opera almost got me to break the DVD. Almost. Making farting noises for 98 minutes would be about a wash in terms of enjoyment factor. It has an unfortunate comic quality to it...similar to a clown being run over by a balloon truck.

Terrible.

Avatar (2009)

I saw this already...

[1/10 · 23 July 2010]

I like James Cameron, I loved The Abyss and Terminator.

In terms, I'm not the biggest fan of Sigourney Weaver or Titanic.

I'm not going to go to the extreme of calling this movie crap. I think the movie clearly has its shining points and I was mesmerized by the IMAX 3D presentation.

The story, unfortunately, is rife with cliché and borrowed plot devices. The overall story of course hails from Kevin Costner's masterwork. to that, I'm not saying the movie is a ripoff. I think unfortunately for James Cameron, his story got done before he got to it. Original yes, waited too long and was already done well...absolutely. The overall tone seems to be a environmentally friendly Star Wars/Return of the Jedi setup. Unobtainium being a weird reference to "The Core" (Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, Delroy Lindo) to Delroy Lindo's development of the key component to make the trip to the center of the Earth. This reference threw me through most of the movie. I was trying to connect the two and gave up at some point. The characters are hackneyed and tired dredged-up stock characters with the addition of an identical twin in a wheelchair.

The movie does a good job of setting a political tone, commenting on US hegemonic aims in the world, and in response to my own criticism, the military characters could have been intended to be flat and lacking in definition and development to accentuate a point that conquerers don't have personalities. Of course, the same point was made in Dances With Wolves. The environmental overtones seemed a little ham-handed relating to the destruction of the rain forests and natural diversity on our own planet to accommodate development of political and business interests that seem to have no satiety nor rationality (Unobtainium?). The point was heard and well-received, but poorly executed. If the political tone of the movie is to be a centerpiece of the overall work, couldn't it have been constructed better and with more science-fiction flair? Again, perhaps the point of unobtainium was that it really didn't matter what they were ostensibly on the planet for. I guess if they were there for Memnomnia Gum, I would have whining about something else...although I don't think the Martian Chronicles is as prominent a work to accidentally site as the Core.

The special effects were first-rate. The idea of the "surrogates" to blend in with the locals was quite good. I liked the interactive network in terms of the imagery of the interconnectedness of an ecosystem.